Baptist Paper On Catholicism

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thanks Brother! That was very cool.

To Truth:

The non-Catholic is totally correct on every point.

Truth, this is absurd. Many of his statements were utterly false, not just false personal interpretations of scripture, but misrepresentations of Catholicism, so if you honestly believe he was "totally correct on every point", I think you would do well to learn more about Catholicism and the Bible.

[nippy316]

Sweet job Bro. Adam.

You are SOOOOO Catholic!

[dUSt]

Truth, Bruce S...

May the peace and love of Christ be with you both.

Bro Adam is Baptist. He came here to learn about Catholicism with an open mind, as opposed to attacking it. His efforts have not only brought him to a better understanding of Catholicism, but have helped all of us Catholics here have a better understanding of what it means to be a "good" Protestant. We have grown closer because of this.

If you care to respond to any of his points, please do. If you do not, I'll accept that as indication that you do not have legitimate replies to his points.

God bless.

[Circle_Master]

If you care to respond to any of his points, please do. If you do not, I'll accept that as indication that you do not have legitimate replies to his points.

fine. since you insist - although your request is a bit insane a unrealistic

[Brother Adam]

butt-kisser

monkey-butt :cool:

[Dave]

Bro. Adam, way to defend the faith! You rock! You're an asset to the phorum!

[NewReformation]

Nice.

[littleflower+JMJ]

this gives me hope that Yes it IS possible for those of other faiths to understand our faith!! ^_^ and correctly too!! :D

[Circle_Master]

The following is a paper written by a freshmen at Cedarville university. My response is bolded.

Adam's notes in bold

Jonathan Evans

Professor Clark

Composition

20 November 2003

By the Blood: A Comparison of Catholic Doctrine and Biblical Truth

Thousands of people die every day and go to either heaven or hell. Many of those people are devout Catholics. The true tragedy of the death of a Catholic individual is that he or she expects to enter Heaven; but, more often than not, arrives in Hell. Wow. Quite the opening statement. I look foreword to how this is proven, since, as of yet, I have to find anyone who judges the hearts of men other than Jesus Christ.

No one ever claims to judge the hearts of men other than Jesus Christ. The author is simply putting forward that the revealed truth in Scriptures say one thing, many Catholics, along with many Protestants do not comply to that. It is not an attack - an observation. It would be incredulous for you to even begin to say that Catholics are all going to heaven, only possibly ironmonk would say that just because he must disagree with everything I write.

Often, when evangelicals make this claim, many Catholics ask, “How can it be that a Christian would go to Hell?” The answer is simple, “Christians do not go to Hell.” The typical response is, “Then how can a Catholic go to Hell?” Catholics have been taught to call themselves ‘Christians,’ and they have been taught that Catholicism is the correct way to faithfully pursue Christ, yet neither claim is true. This needs to be qualified. Who said "How can it be that a Christian would go to hell?" Is this in tune with the Churches teachings? This is nothing but opinionated biased speculation so far.

He is speaking of a true Christian and you know that. One who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and the other hoardes of affects have been imputed and applied to Him by the trinity. You are arguing on nothing.

The Catholic Church claims doctrinal heresies as dogma. They liberally interpret Scripture in order to justify the ‘sacred’ traditions that they proclaim as doctrine. Devout Catholics try to justify themselves to God based on the good works they perform.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:14-17  I believe that Catholics interpret scripture quite conservatively compared to protestant interpretations. The Catholic Church does not condone ordaining homosexuals, female clergy, denying the Trinity, or denying the humanity and divinity of Christ. Only some of the claims of the broad and vast protestant Church.

Conservatively in morals most of the time - which is good. Conservative in Scriptural interpretation? Almost never. I ask why circumcision is not required in the NT and everyone here basically answered 'cause the Church said so!' - that is as liberal as you can get. It doesn't look for truth in Scripture but looks for it in itself, and itself says it is truth. Circular and illogical.

These works, known formally as sacraments, are inherently inconsistent with the Biblical understanding of salvation.

Let’s be clear here- a sacrament is a sign of God’s grace. God’s grace exists in more parts of our life than the initial salvation we receive through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior. God wishes to grace us in all of our life.

Let's be even more clear- you say it is a sign of God's grace, that invalidates what grace is. unmerited favor. Meaning if you must have a sign for it, it is not grace, but works based. This is simple logic.

Catholicism is not Christianity at all and we, as Christians, must understand the differences between these two belief systems in order to witness to Catholics.

This author prematurely makes claims of things he knows little about. Catholicism is the oldest “sect” of Christendom, and is in fact, not a sect at all. Where as all protestant denominations can trace their lineage to the past 600 years to founders, and only a very small handful as far back as 1300-1500 years ago, Catholicism correctly traces its roots to Jesus Christ in 33 AD at the coming of the Holy Spirit, given to indwell the lives of men.

All organizations change over time, and you can see it easily within the Catholic Church. Two examples - a) it was understood up until the recent postmodern culture that only those within the true church of Christ (the invisible one here) are quoth 'saved' if Jesus returned at that moment. Now this culture believes that is not quite true, but by desire you could be in it - that is a growth in an organization and a change, thus the Catholic Church of the 1300's is not the one of today. Same name, different beliefs. b) The early culture of the first few centuries had basically two types of people. Those who believe in a pantheon of God's, and those who believed in one God. Many introduced into the church believed in a pantheon and added Christianity to their list to worship - results can be seen in the Pantheon with the saints heads now there to appeal to these, and the affects such as a sacrifice (transubstantiation), and others. This influenced and changed the church, and the model seen first in Acts of things such as all families celebrating communion without a 'priest' or 'apostle' was changed.

In order to be able to witness to Catholics, Evangelicals must understand the Catholic belief in a sacramental process of salvation. Studying Catholic Doctrine is arduous work and so the following paragraphs are an Evangelical’s guide to the Catholic Sacraments.

This will be my first lesson in linguistics to the author.  Your understanding of “salvation” is limited to the process in which one formally “accepts Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior”. In Catholicism Salvation is taught more in terms of a life long process. Yes, there is an initial salvation, but we are not in heaven until we are in heaven, son. We are still running a race, and we are still being saved. The sacraments aid the Catholic in that race, as prayer may help you in that race.

You seem to misrepresent protestantism doctrine here. Salvation biblically is a lifelong process. The commission isn't to make those that profess Jesus as Lord and Savior but to make disciples of all nations. This is a struggle and one daily to submit to the Holy Spirit within oneself and turn to sacrifice more of one's life to Christ. I spoke with one Catholic turned protestant recently who told me how much harder it was now for him because no longer could he just 'do' stuff, he must work on changing his heart, and giving more of his life daily to Christ. To change his attitude, and how he lives.

Many Evangelical Christians are completely oblivious to the world of Catholicism.

I agree completely!

I agree as well. I would also point out many Catholics are oblivious to the world of protestantism and do not wish to understand it either.

Many believe that Catholicism is simply another denomination of Christianity.

You’ll also have to qualify this statement. It is my understanding through years of “Chick” training through the tracts of Jack Chick that most protestants view Catholics as an entirely different religion.

Many do believe that, I do not. Catholicism has a truckload of baggage over Scripture which doesn't allow Scripture to speak for itself today but must be molded to what the Catholic Church says.

However, the doctrinal differences between protestant denominations are virtually imperceptible when compared to the major differences in fundamental doctrines between Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism.

I believe there is a monumental difference between the SDA who denies the Trinity and the Lutheran Church who believes in initial salvation through infant baptism and the Methodist church who ordains female clergy as well as the Baptist Church who ordains homosexual clergy. But you are right, Protestantism and Catholicism have major differences.

Agreed, major differences. Most mainstream protestant denominations in America do not have that large schism as you put forth. Would you really consider a female pastor to be a greater difference than salvation by faith alone, and salvation by faith and works? One is an interpretation which can be very dangerous, the other affects the very nature of what grace is. Seems simple which is more of a problem.

For example, within the realm of Evangelical Christianity, there are several different doctrinal positions on the subject of The Perseverance of the Saints. Arminians believe that a true Christian can indeed lose his or her salvation, but Calvinists believe that a true Christian cannot lose his or her salvation. Both the Arminian and Calvinist views, however, are widely held evangelical positions concerning the nature of salvation (Grudem 336). The doctrinal differences between Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, however, are not as subtle.

The most notable doctrinal differences between Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism are demonstrated in the respective doctrines of salvation. The reason that most Evangelical Christians are unaware of such differences is because both doctrines have some common beliefs supporting them. For example, both Catholic and Evangelical doctrine teach that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Redeemer (Grudem 108 and Catechism Par. 422). In order to recognize the cause of the differences between Catholic and Evangelical doctrinal positions, one must trace the history and authority of the claims that these doctrines make.

As you take to studying history (and by all means- soak in it) study how the views of the Church fathers and major influences into protestant doctrine shadow that of Catholic doctrine. Now so far you’ve told me that Catholicism is completely different than Christianity, yet very much the same in many beliefs. Don’t back yourself too far into that corner.

And I would encourage you to study history from all perspectives, and not from one that must have it one way such as the Catholic Church. There is many interesting things which are forgotten in the Catholic Church's rendition.

Evangelical doctrine traces its authority to the Bible.

The first problem….

Not a problem, this would be 'Sola Scriptura', a foundational belief. To say it is a problem is to put your own philosophy over it, but in reality this is a very simple statement and undeniable by anyone because it really is what evangelical doctrine does. evangelical, not any doctrine.

For example, Evangelical doctrine teaches that Man was created in God’s image only because the Bible says, “So God made man in His own image...” (Gen. 1:27 NIV, Bible Gateway). All Evangelical doctrine traces its authority to the Bible. Catholic Doctrine traces its authority to four sources: “Sacred Scripture” (Catechism Par. 82), “Sacred Tradition” (Catechism Par. 80), the processes of logic and reason, and extra-biblical divine revelation.

This is where your “facts” start to get sticky. You are correct that evangelicals hold only to scripture as a rule of faith, however Catholics hold to only Holy Tradition and Scripture. The Word is broken down into 12 areas as follows:

Tradition: Inspired actions of God’s people; Actions of Jesus Christ; Inspired actions of the apostles; inspired oral interpretations; teachings, and judgments; Christ’s oral interpretations, teachings, judgments; Inspired apostolic interpretations, teachings; inspired Jewish institutions, Institutions of Jesus Christ, Inspired apostolic institutions

Scripture: Inspired Jewish writings, Writings of Jesus Christ (non-existent); Inspired apostolic writings and inspired writings of apostolic teachings.

All of these can be also split up in the categories of Old Testament Revelation, Direct Divine Revelation, and New Testament Revelation. All taken together we have the whole of Revelation and rule of Faith for Catholics. (This comes from Fr. John Waiss).

This seems to spit in the face of Scripture such as Psalm 19 which glorifies God for His general revelation in the world around us, and His special revelation in Torah. And also as well with the the same man (David) glorifying God and saying how important it is to be founded in Scripture (Psalm 1). Your showing of Catholics denies 'extra-biblical divine revelation' which would be ex-Cathedra speaking. Perhaps you forgot about that in your response. What you did write was things recorded in Scripture, which puts Scripture on the pedestol again.

For example, Catholic Doctrine teaches that “all who die in God’s grace and friendship, but imperfectly purified… undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect” (Catechism Pars. 1030-1031).  Even though this place of “final purification” is not recorded in the Bible, the Catholic Church argues that, by virtue of reason, such a place must exist. Similarly the Evangelical doctrines concerning salvation are based on the Bible exclusively. Many Catholic doctrines, however, are the inventions of ordinary men.

The phrase “inventions of ordinary men” is unqualified. Purgatory, unlike most protestant belief, is not a “hell” one must go through to earn their way to heaven. Consider: Once you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior- do you ever sin again? If not, I shall shut my mouth and sit at your feet to learn. If you do then you know that sin still has an effect on your life, albeit not an eternal one. Continued sin after initial salvation has both a natural consequence (you shoot someone in the back you’ll end up in jail) and a spiritual one (often considered “backsliding” by the protestant community).

This spiritual one must be dealt with, especially if we are to go before a Holy God when we die. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that nothing sinful can enter heaven. Well, your acceptance of Christ’s gift has allowed you back into the household, but dad is going to be upset if you start to smash the china. Since God does tell us that we will be in new bodies and newly clothed when we enter the Pearly Gates, it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that we will be purified as we enter heaven. After all, there will be no more tears shed. No priest or pope can tell you how long this purification will last, it may be so infinitely small that you won’t even know it happened. However, purgatory is not a way to go from hell to heaven. Catholics believe that once you die, that’s it. Your goose is either cooked, or it isn’t. After death, we must wait upon Jesus Christ.

You do not seem to understand here that Paul writes of a 'new creation in Christ'. This old will pass away upon Christ's return or our death and there will be nothing to purify. And yes, it would be the "inventions of ordinary men" because the logic behind it is flawed to begin with, and the roots of it take place in Jewish tradition which was not inspired, or cannot be shown to be inspired since they had much tradition (almost all of it) to be untrue.

The primary, and the most observably heretical, differences between Catholic and Evangelical doctrine, concern the method of the reception of salvation. Evangelical doctrine teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross made salvation available to all those who “call on the name of the Lord,” (Rom. 10:13 Niv, Bible Gateway) and that his sacrifice is the “propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10 NASB, Bible Gateway). Catholic doctrine, however, teaches that the sacrifice of Christ is merely the foundation of salvation and that the mass “makes present the sacrifice of the cross” (Catechism 1366). The problem with this assertion is not only that it is extra-biblical, but that it also contradicts scripture. The Bible warns us not to be like the religious officials of the first century who “again crucify themselves the Son of God and put him to open shame” (Heb. 6:6 NIV, Bible Gateway).

Slam on those brakes there son! You going 90 and just smashed into a brick wall I like to call “Common misconceptions of the Catholic Church” and the theme of the book I’m writing. Catholics do not “re-sacrifice” “recrucify” or “redo” anything in the mass. Christ’s sacrifice is binding for all time, past, present, and future. God is not bound by time. Catholics honor the sacrifice Christ made on the cross for our sins in the mass as they take part in a very intimate meal with the Savior. Catholics indeed to call upon the Lord and believe Christ’s sacrifice is the penalty for our sins.

Meal with the Savior, or of the Savior. You said you disagreed there but you didn't really say why. You just said they believe since Christ is eternal, the sacrifice is still applicable in the mass. I suggest you read Romans 5:12-23 at some point, it may add some clarity.

Unfortunately, this inconsistency is the norm for Catholic Doctrine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains the sum of all Catholic doctrine, claims all of its contents to be based upon the Bible. However, many of the essential portions of Catholic doctrine are not only extra-biblical, but completely contradictory to it. These anti-biblical teachings, known as heresies, (Do I hear the kettle calling the pot black?) are the foundation of the Catholic doctrines of salvation. The Catholic Church teaches these doctrines to the Catholic laity who trust in the Catholic Church for salvation. Unfortunately, these people are placing their trust (exclusively) in the heretical doctrines that the Church teaches and are therefore destined for hell.

Son, you better start clarifying yourself, because if you don’t I’m going to have a conniption fit.

I am not sure why you are going in a 'conniption fit'. You have not shown anything written to be untrue, but have shown yourself to come to it with your own bias. Even the last response you gave your utmost rejection of, but at the same time did not clarify how the primary source was incorrect.

The Catholic doctrines concerning salvation center on the seven sacraments. Typically, due to the nature of each sacrament, it is impossible to complete any more than six of the seven sacraments, however, only the first four of the sacraments, Baptism, Penance, Eucharist, and Confirmation respectively, are central to the Catholic doctrines of salvation. Catholic doctrine teaches that an adult must have completed all four of these sacraments in order to have completed the process of salvation (Levis 33). Confirmation is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, but the Catholic Church claims biblical authority for Baptism, Eucharist, and Penance. However, the Catholic Church has added its own traditions to the biblical prescriptions for these ordinances. The Catholic Church has elevated theses traditions to a higher level of spiritual authority than Scripture. In fact, the Church often uses tradition to modify Scripture resulting in sacramental rituals based more on tradition than sound Scripture.

All you have accomplished in saying here is that the Church elevates Holy Tradition higher than Scripture. However this is untrue. Neither is higher than the other, and Tradition compliments scripture. Nothing is modified.

Tradition must be higher than Scripture because Scripture is nothing without the Catholic Church's Tradition, yet without Scripture the Catholic Church would be fine today. Tradition is the rule in Catholic Church because it says what you must do with Scripture and so thus Scripture is void on it's own. Tradition stands alone as it does not even need Scripture to confirm itself within the Catholic Church. The magisterium does that. To say that they complement is a misunderstanding of how the Catholic Church uses them.

The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism takes away “…original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin’ (Catechism Par. 1263). The Catholic Church also claims that Jesus established the doctrine of the necessity of baptism when he was baptized, “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation” (Catechism Par. 1257). If the purpose of Baptism is to forgive sin, it is absurd to think that Jesus would need to be baptized. Both the Bible and Catholic doctrine teach that Christ was sinless. An innocent man can not be pardoned; similarly Jesus could not be forgiven, because he had no sin. This section of the Catechism demonstrates that not only is Catholic doctrine often un-biblical, but also often internally inconsistent.

You hit the brick wall again. Watch yourself or you’ll end up bruised. First, Jesus partook in Johns baptism. This was done not for the forgiveness of sins, but as the first step of acceptance to His Fathers will for Him. The Catholic Church does not teach that Christ ever sinned.

Second linguistics lesson: “necessity” is a fairly broad term.

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher. (55 Faustus of Riez, De Spiritu)

178 We must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

179 Faith is a supernatural gift from God. In order to believe, man needs the interior helps of the Holy Spirit.

180 Believing is a human act, conscious and free, corresponding to the dignity of the human person.

183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mk 16:16)

The Catholic Church accepts that there will be some who are not able to be baptized due to martyrdom or some other cause.  This is why the Church speaks of the “baptism of desire”. This is basically a way of saying that God says we need to be baptized (scriptural) but sometimes this may prove impossible for the individual and thus God does not overlook their faith (scriptural). The Church teaches that only Catholics may enter heaven. Yet according to the Church, you are a Catholic. Take that one out for a spin. J

Brick wall again? You haven't showed one as of yet. Maybe I will go in a 'conniption' now. Necessity is a very simple word as well, it is only broad for the Catholic Church because it most (see the last line of Unam Sanctum). You agree with the authority in your response again and clarify what the author also agrees with that baptism is not the only necessity of salvation for the Catholic Church. He merely says it is necessary. Check your logic before jumping to conclusions as you are doing now.

The Church uses John 3:5 to defend their claim that Jesus instituted Baptism as a necessary element of salvation. The verse reads, “Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily I say unto thee, except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!’” (KJV, Deluxe Bible Edition Software). The Catholic Church interprets this verse to mean that unless one is sanctified by the reception of the sacrament of Baptism, one’s sins cannot be forgiven. They claim that without baptism there is no justification (Catechism Par. 1257). Romans 5:1, however, says that “We have been justified by faith” (NASB, Bible Gateway). The phrase “born of water” more than likely means natural birth. Baptism, as an ordinance instituted by Christ, is a public demonstration of one’s faith.

Ah phooey, don’t allow your own private interpretation come into play. The ideas of “a public demonstration of one’s faith” and “ordinance” and “the phrase ‘born of water’ more than likely means natural birth’ are all extra-biblical ideas. They are all your own play on what Christ taught based on your own theology. If you try hard enough, you can use scripture to prove God is gender neutral, or you can prove there is no Trinity- after all this is a very extra-biblical theology.

In the Catholic Church, the sacrament of Baptism is typically performed on infants.

Accept in the very first part of the first century, when being a “believer” was fairly new to even Paul. Then thousands of adults needed baptism. Oh look- there’s that word needed.

You say they are extra-biblically, yet the Catholic Church's position is extra-biblical as well by that definition. There is nothing 'extra-biblical' about that statement because it is grounded in other passages and themes of Scripture. To say it is such shows your misunderstanding and ignorance of the protestant position. I suggest you work on a book, 'What are Protestant Doctrines and positions' before you start working on the Catholic Church's.

The Church claims the infant is justified by faith in the sacrament of Baptism. The Church teaches that the faith by which a child is justified is actually the faith of his or her parents to have him or her baptized. The Church also teaches that one can only have faith after baptism.

I’m looking for proof, yet I’m finding none. You’re first statement is right on. You’re second statement is shaky from where you’re coming from, and you totally lose bearing on your third statement.

No the person did not present documents for this one. Your response is an 'ad-hominim' as well and helps nothing. I just assume you agree since you provided no backup for yours either.

In other words, the Catholic Church claims that faith actually begins at baptism and that is impossible to have before receiving this sacrament. This claim is biblically untrue. In Acts 8:37, Philip tells a eunuch that if he believes with all his heart that Jesus is the Son of God, then he may be baptized. The eunuch affirms his faith and is baptized in verse 38. The eunuch was baptized of his own will and was justified through his own faith, not the faith of others.

Don’t pull at straws, it hurts them. A Christians journey begins at baptism. I’m willing to bet your local church won’t accept you into membership until you have been baptized or record of your baptism is transferred from your former church. Am I right? For an infant being baptized, yes faith begins at baptism. Who’s to say that God is not allowed to give faith to an infant? You? Hardly. John the Baptist LEAPED in Elizabeth’s’ womb before he was even born. Don’t limit the Creator, you can only get yourself into trouble. Faith is something that God grants us through grace, and an infant can indeed have faith.

Your argument is void. No kid in the womb has the rationality or intelligence to have faith in anything. Unless you are saying that some are gifted with this supraintelligence in the womb? Perhaps you should understand that you had no valid info in your response to this past one and rethink your reply.

The next sacrament in the Catholic process of salvation is Penance (also known as Reconciliation). Penance is a preparation for the Eucharist.

Yes it is, but you can go to confession any time. Yes, you son, a protestant are allowed to go to confession, should you so choose and believe in the sacrament. It isn’t limited to the Catholic faithful.

Ok, penance is reconciliation. Interesting since reconciliation is done by God alone (2 Cor 5:18-19)

The Catholic Church teaches that in order to receive the Eucharist, one must be in a “state of grace” (Catechism Par. 1415). In order to be considered to be in the “state of grace,” one must be free from all mortal sin (Catechism Par. 1457). The Catholic Church defines a mortal sin as an action that “if

unforgiven causes the eternal loss of heaven” (Levis 78). The Church teaches that during the sacrament of Penance, a priest absolves the penitent (the person confessing his or her sins) of all mortal sin (Catechism Par. 1461).

Hey, that was really good scholarship. Good job- I mean that sincerely.

Good showing of the Catholic Church's doctrine. I wonder why you think this one is so good yet the others are so off the wall. I would think all his research was done in the same manner. Consider what view you are coming to his writings with, and search for his instead.

There are three components of the sacrament of Penance: the act of contrition, the confession of sins, and satisfaction (Levis 54). Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” (Saunders Par. 4). This is scriptural; the Bible says to detest our sin. The biblical discrepancies lay in the next two components of the sacrament of Penance.

The confession of sins is the act of the penitent admitting all of his or her mortal sins to a priest. One biblical discrepancy inherent in the aspect of the sacrament of Penance is the concept surrounding mortal sin. The Church teaches that venial sins weaken charity and slow the growth of virtue but do not take away sanctifying grace (Levis 79). The Church also teaches that some sins are mortal. Mortal sins are serious or grave sins committed in full knowledge of that sin and with full consent from the sinner. Mortal sins “deprive one of sanctifying grace” and temporarily destroy one’s relationship with God. (Levis 78) These teachings are biblically inconsistent. To God, all sin is mortal. Romans 6:23 says, “…the wages of sin is death” (KJV, Deluxe Bible Edition Software). All sin is serious to God, but no sin can deprive us of God’s grace.

If all sin is mortal, than after your initial acceptance of Jesus Christ, you’re in serious trouble. But lets discover how your logic doesn’t all tie together:

1) The wages of sin is death, and any sin outside of the grace of God will send you packing.

2) Once a sinner enters into God’s grace through the gift of faith they are shielded from God’s wrath through the blood of Christ. This is incredible protection.

3) However, like the prodigal son, we can choose, if we will, to cut off our relationship from God. God will NEVER abandon us. He will NEVER lose one of his sheep, but his sheep are allowed to wander stray, should they so choose.  Notice the requirements of a mortal sin- in all effects you must pretty much be telling God to jump off a cliff. You aren’t interested in what He wants for you and you don’t want any part of him. This sin is very premeditated and very serious.

You come from the idea that "his sheep are allowed to wander stray". This makes no sense - all sheep wander stray by their own choice and it is Christ who always brings them back. Sheep are noted for their supreme dumbness as well, they have no idea they are going astray - it just happens and Christ brings them back. You have an odd statement as well, you say that mortal sin is "you don't want any part of him", this is ridiculous and not even the Catholics teach this one. Perhaps you should consider their position more. Do you really think someone who is driven to commit murder believes in his heart that he wants 0 part of God at that act? I would severely doubt it as that act is a choice, just like all sin is, and because you make it it is pride believing your own wisdom is above God's. Your points 1 and 2 are good, and it makes me glorify God that the grace of God covers all sins. (Romans 5:12-23)

The Catholic Church defends the necessity of the confession of sins with I John 1:9, which reads, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (NIV, Bible Gateway). Confession is biblical, but in the Bible, sins are confessed directly to God. “When Kind David repented of his adultery, he confessed sin directly to God. No priest. No ritual. No sacrament. Just a broken man owning up to his sin before his Maker” (McCarthy 80).

I love the verse you use, it reminds me of my days in the Lutheran Church. Very liturgical, very beautiful. Your proof here is something to be desired though. Your mixing the passage that stated “Jesus Christ is our one intercessor between God and man” with your conceived notion that “all confession is directly to God”. If you commit adultery do you think you owe it to your wife to fess up? Naturally. The priest doesn’t take God’s place, and certainly can’t decide for God that your going to go to heaven. The priests position is to merely determine if you are truly sorry of your sin or if your just trying to get out of trouble. If you commit adultery and intend to do it again and just keep apologizing why should your wife forgive you? She has no reason to because your heart isn’t in the right place. The Apostles were given a special gift to loose and bind on earth as they saw fit. And what was loosed and bound on earth would also be loosed and bound in heaven. That is why we have ordinations (hint: protestants got the idea of ordination from the Catholics). Through the laying of hands this special gift is passed down.

a) You contradict yourself, you say confession must be to a priest, and not just to God, but you don't say confession is to your wife, but then in this response you say confession basically must be to everyone sinned against. Is not our salvation between us and God, not between others? Of course with others our salvation will cause us to wish to ask forgiveness, but we are not repenting to each other, only to God.

b) Ordination is not from the Catholics, this is absurd. Even Timothy was ordained by Paul for his ministry. Not as an apostle, but as a leader of the church. It is impossible for an apostle to ordain another apostle since you must have seen the resurrected Lord (Acts 1), and the signs of the position are mighty works and wonders.

The third aspect of the sacrament of Penance is Satisfaction. During this aspect of the sacrament of Penance, “the priest imposes some acts of satisfaction [upon the penitent] to repair the harm done by sin” (Levis 55). After the satisfaction is imposed the priest absolves the penitent of his or her sin. Satisfaction is unbiblical because it relies on the belief that good works merit forgiveness from God and because it gives the priest the authority to forgive sin. The Church defends the ability of the priest to forgive sins with John 20:23; which says, “Any to whom you give forgiveness, will be made free from their sins…” (Basic English Bible, Deluxe Bible Edition Software) When one examines the context of this passage however, one finds that Jesus was talking directly to his apostles.

Hey, were on the same page there. You’re just drawing a different conclusion based on your beliefs.

Same for you.

The Church claims that the clergy are the successors of the apostles and can therefore forgive sin (Catechism Par. 1576). Biblically however, “The apostles had no successors, for to succeed them one needed to be a witness of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22)” (McCarthy, 308).

Don’t rely on protestant sources to understand Catholicism. Just like you wouldn’t rely on Buddhist sources to understand Baptists.

He was relying on Catechism Par. 1576 there. McCarthy's quote restates what I just said about seeing the resurrected Lord. And there are good documents written by a baptist on buddhism, and vice versi, and for any situation. It is tough to get any unbias view, so pick what you want and read and always consider.

The Catholic Church asserts that once the penitent has been absolved of his or her sin, he or she is ready to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches that during the sacrament of the Eucharist that the bread and wine of the Passover meal are actually changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Grudem 390). The Church teaches that this process of transubstantiation does not change the actual substance of the bread and wine, but the essence thereof is immolated by Christ in an “unbloody manner” (Catechism Par. 1367). The council of Trent anathemized, or cursed unto damnation, anyone who disagrees with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema (Church Doctrines Par. 4).

Read the part of the CC teaching about invincible ignorance.

Read Romans 1 about none are ignorant.

The Church teaches that in order to attain salvation one must “cooperate with grace” (McCarthy 119),(stop using MacCarthy)

Would you be happier with 10 documents being sourced, rather than 1? 1 being sourced doesn't mean it is the only one, it just means the author felt McCarthy had the best words for the matter.

that the Eucharist is the way that the faithful cooperate with grace, and that it is the medium by which they obtain sanctifying grace (McCarthy 130). The Catechism of the Catholic Church maintains that Christ himself taught that partaking of the bread and wine is necessary for salvation, “The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: ‘Truly, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’“ (Catechism 1384).

The Catholic doctrines of “unbloody” immolation and the necessity of the Eucharist are both unbiblical. Hebrews 9:22 says, “…without [the] shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (NSAB, Bible Gateway). Therefore, the doctrine of “unbloody” immolation of Passover meal is un-biblical.

Son, you know better. Think about it more, why they use the words “unbloody”. Do your crackers and grape juice look like blood? Christ’s death was very bloody, and Catholics affirm this. In fact, I challenge you to see “The Passion of the Christ” when it comes out on February 25th. It will change the way you see the sacrifice. I would read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel to prepare for this experience on the last hours of Christ’s life.

I would challenge you to apply your own logic. It doesn't look like Christ's body, and it doesn't taste like it, so logic says it is not. (Note: I don't use this to solidify my own beliefs, I'm using your own logic against you.) The author here is not referring to Christ's last week either, but to the eucharist. You are making a parallel the author would never attempt and you know better as well.

Christ, admittedly, does say, “Truly, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53 NIV, Bible Gateway). However, when one reads the chapter in context, Christ goes on to say that the words that he has said are not of the flesh but of the spirit (John 6:63 NASB, Bible Gateway). He was speaking figuratively, it is against the Jewish law to drink human blood, and Jesus came to “fulfill the law” (Matt. 5:17 NASB Bible Gateway). The flesh and blood that he refers to here are symbols of his sacrifice.

Unfortunately you aren’t grasping the concept correctly. Some of this is very complex, and some of this is just plain mystery (kindof like the Trinity is a mystery). I’m not sure I’m the best person in the world to explain this to you, but John 6 does shadow the Passover in many ways. Obviously when Jesus speaks of flesh, he isn’t saying that his sacrifice on the cross profits nothing, that would be silly for him to be crucified if it didn’t mean anything. However, all of this he is speaking to us of is of the spiritual, not of the world.

Perhaps you aren't grasping it either. I am not sure why it has to be very complex either, it seems to be quite straightforward if you see it as a figure of speech.

The Catholic Church, however, does not view the bread and wine as symbols of Christ sacrifice, but rather says that the offering of the bread and wine during the Mass (the weekly Catholic church service) “makes present the sacrifice of the cross” (Catechism Par. 1366). The Church actually claims to perpetuate Christ’s sacrifice.  Hebrews 6:6 warns us not to “sacrifice the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame” (KJV, Deluxe Bible Edition Software). Furthermore, it should be noted that when Christ instituted the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, that he said, “this do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19 NIV, Bible Gateway, Italics mine). He did not say, “This do in order to continue my sacrifice and merit grace.”

Again, we have gone through this already- Catholics do not re-sacrifice Christ on the cross. They “make present the once and for all sacrifice of Christ”. God is outside of time, and Christ’s sacrifice is made for all time, never to be repeated again. Indeed Catholics do partake of the mass in remembrance of Christ. But it is much, much more than a meaningless symbol. Nothing Christ did was meaningless or merely symbol.

I believe the author is using Hebrews 6:6 out of context here. However, your logic has much to be desired. Christ's sacrifice is outside of time? Are you saying He is still on the cross? I am 100% sure Christ died and was raised from the dead and is not being sacrificed today. The sacrifice was for all, but saying you must partake in that still denies that Christ covered all sins at that moment - just that he covers only sins in the past. All does not mean 'all up to this point' but since He is eternal I think you agree He covered all future sins as well.

The final of the four sacraments of salvation is the sacrament of Confirmation. The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrament of Confirmation “prefects baptismal grace,” (Levis 43) and “gives the Holy Spirit” (Levis 41). The Bible however teaches that baptism is symbolic and that the Spirit is given at the moment of belief. (Ephesians 4:30).

Many evangelicals wonder how the Catholic Church could so severely pervert the teachings of Scripture. Such perversion is the product of the elevation of “sacred tradition” above Holy Scripture within the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent declared in 1561 that the “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church were of the same level of spiritual authority as Sacred Scripture.

Are you starting to see the problems with your own logic? You are so determined to show the Holy Church as a “perversion” you’ll willing to exaggerate anything that might prove your own point.

Show the exaggeration so you could enlighten other readers please.

Ever since that declaration was made, the Catholic Church has used “sacred tradition” to create new and affirm old doctrines that are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Scripture.

Prove it or don’t say it. Slander is not too cool in God’s eyes.

He has been showing it. It is your own position which says it is not proof. There are many many examples of this as well, but the Catholic Church will merely say that is your own personal interpretation and not sanctified.

The Catholic Church acknowledges Scripture as “the word of God” (Catechism Par. 104) and as “without error” (Catechism Par. 107), yet still continues to teach anti-scriptural doctrines based on traditions which the Church also acknowledge as “the word of God” (Catechism Pars. 81, 85). These traditions are the same sort that the religious officials of Jesus’ time clung to. In the seventh chapter of Mark, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy.

Un-biblical is the word you’re looking for and this is your final linguistics lesson. Anti-biblical are those things expressly forbidden by scripture. Un-biblical are those things that scripture may be silent about or not speak directly on. Pews, crackers, grape juice, special music, and evening dinner with your in-laws are all unbiblical, however not necessarily anti-biblical. If you mean to call Catholics hypocrites, you better show the hypocrisy. I’ll give you a $100 if you can show an official dogma that is expressly anti-biblical.

Any dogma? Saints according to Scripture are all believers in Christ. Not one who is shown by three miracles and all sorts of other processes, that is anti-biblical. Grace is unmeritted Scripturally, not produced by doing a work such as a sacrament, that is anti-biblical. It is your own semantic differences and position which say it is anti-biblical and the sacred tradition which ignores the plain context today.

Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites: as it is written, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.” You have let go of the Command of God and are holding on to the traditions of men….You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe you own traditions! (Mark 7:6-9, NIV Bible gateway)

Similar to the Pharisees, the Catholic Church has pushed aside the commands of God to observe their own traditions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion” (Catechism Par. 81). The Bible, however, says, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8 KJV, Deluxe Bible Edition Software). Unfortunately, in practice, the Catholic Church places much higher spiritual value on “sacred tradition” than on Scripture. By their deeds, the officials of the Catholic Church have proclaimed that they have more spiritual authority than God. The Church actually defines faith as belief in all that the Church proposes for belief (Catechism Par. 1814). On some level, the Magisterium, or governing body, of the Catholic Church believes that they are above God. That belief is the reason why they draw the faith of the devout away from God and to the Catholic Institution.

This is pure opinion and speculation, and has no grounding in truth.

Who are you to define truth. This is not speculation either but what the Catholic Church says. The conclusion is valid if one understands the Oral Word of God to be summed up on the Scriptures today and unknown outside of it.

Ephesians 2:8 tells us that “we are saved through faith” (KJV, Deluxe Bible Edition Software) in Christ. During the sacrament of Confirmation, however, the catechumen (the one receiving the sacrament) professes to believe all that the church teaches. He or she professes faith in the Catholic Church not in Christ. The most important aspect of faith is not its sincerity but the object in which faith is placed.

Apostles' Creed

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen

“All powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, by water and the Holy Spirit you freed your sons and daughters from sin and gave them new life. Send your Holy Spiritu upon them to be their helper and guide, Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence. Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence. We ask this through Christ our Lord.

It seem you are wrong.

You don't understand what the author said. We are saved through faith in Christ, that is true. The summation of what we must believe is not summed up in just a word however, but who Christ is. Your apostle creed also is a declaration of belief, and not a guide for salvation. The faith in who Christ is however, the author would agree with this creed even thought it is from a few centuries after the apostles already died. The only part possibly in disagreement that I see is Christ descending into hell.

David E. Schroeder said, “[it is] Better to have a little bit of faith in thick ice than a lot of faith in thin ice” (Schroeder Par. 1). The evangelical places his or her faith in Christ and is saved, but the Catholic typically places his or her faith and trust in the Catholic Church.

Upon inception into your local Baptist Church, do the deacons first ask new prospective members about their theological beliefs? Are they required to agree with the basic beliefs of the Church in order to be members? Do you place your trust into the church you attend. I think it is only natural that the Catholic Church asks its members to be Catholic. You are wrong that the Catholic church teaches its members to trust in the bride of Christ for salvation. The entire whole of the Catholic Church points in only one direction- to the Son.

And to Mary, and to Sacraments, etc. You misunderstand as well that the Catholic Church does ask for it's members to trust the church. They must trust the Church's redaction of history, the Church's interpretation of interpretations, the Church's interpretation of Church Fathers, the Church's interpretation of ex-Cathedra speaking, and the Church's priests to be holy.

As demonstrated, the doctrines of the Catholic Church are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ. One whose faith is placed in the Catholic Church does not truly have faith in Christ. It is through that faith in Christ that one is saved. Without that faith, Catholics can not expect to have salvation

.  I have yet to meet one faithful Catholic who does not have faith in Christ for their salvation. Your demonstration is nothing more than a stack of cards swaying in the wind.

That is odd, I have met many who say they believe it, and they do the stuff the Catholic Church requires, but they never understand giving their life to Him, or taking up their cross daily. It is just a ritual with a profession and not truth faith just like James says.

Many Catholics, despite growing up in the Catholic Church, have never heard the true Gospel. Catholics are actually discouraged from reading the Bible.

Hogwash. Now your making me upset. Catholics are encouraged to search the scriptures. They are discouraged from taking any twist on scripture they so choose to prove a point. How much of the Bible does your pastor go through in a year? If you attend only Sunday mass in the Catholic Church you will have covered the Bible cover to cover in only three years. The Gospel is proclaimed from the Catholic Church every day. And has been so for nearly 2000 years.

Hogwash, who after three years let alone three days remembers what was taught. David spoke of meditating on Torah daily, not tri-yearly. The church I am currently attending has many different classes going on. I suppose if you wanted you could be done the entire bible in a year with intensive study. It depends on the individual, not the liturgy. Not to mention that, it is a bit hard to meditate on Scripture daily when you used to not even be allowed to have it.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written for or in form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in the matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the succession of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (Noll 157 Emphasis Mine)

In Romans 10:14, the apostle Paul writes, “…how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (KJV, Deluxe Bible Edition Software). The duty of the evangelical is to preach the Gospel to Catholics. If an evangelical does not share his faith with the lost, he or she does not really love God. As Charles Spurgeon said, “Every Christian is either a missionary or an imposter!” (Cahill 15). Christians need to be missionaries to the world of Catholicism, because without someone to teach the Gospel to Catholics, more will die without Christ and spend eternity in hell

Along with my $100 challenge (which I will put in formal writing if you prefer) I challenge you to spend one month at www.phatmass.com, register in their forums and spend a month telling faithful Catholics that they don’t place their trust in Christ. However, I give you a C+ for the time and effort you did put into trying to understand the teachings of the Church and for some solid scholarship- I’d expect nothing less from a Cedarville student, although I had to make several spelling corrections.

Ah, your $100 challenge was already rebuked! Send me money! Of course that is my own private interpretation and your own private interpretation which are fallible and they must be wrong if they disagree with the Catholic Church. So we'll never get anywhere. I have spent over a month here now, actually exactly a month today and you seem to misinterpret the author again. "that they don't place their trust in Christ" - the author never claimed that. those are your own words. He said many do not, that is the first paragraph I believe, I suggest you take off your own bias robe to reconsider what he wrote from his perspective, not forcing it to fit your own. Then you can understand his basis for arguing.

Works Cited

Bible Collection, The. Deluxe Bible Collection 10.1.629. CD-ROM. ValueSoft Dot Com,

2003.

Bible Gateway Dot Com. Gospel Communications. 1 Nov 20003 <http://www. biblegateway.com>.

Cahill, Mark. One Thing You Can’t Do in Heaven. U.S.: The Genesis Group, 2003.

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Santa Clara University. 1 Nov 2003

<http://codesign.scu.edu/ arth12/text_counciloftrent.html>.

“Church Doctrines on the Eucharist.” Mary’s Touch Online 2003. 20 Nov. 2003 <http://

www.marys-touch.com/truth/dogmas.htm>.

Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1999.

Levis, Robert J. Jesus the Catechism and Me

[mulls]

wow that's solid time and effort right there, from both of you.

[Paladin D]

Just wanted to add this small thing in...

Others know more about this than I do, but the Catholic argument is not circular, it's like a spiral.

[Brother Adam]

Due to time constraints I can only respond to a limited amount so I will focus on the actual rebuttals made.

“Conservatively in morals most of the time - which is good. Conservative in Scriptural interpretation? Almost never. I ask why circumcision is not required in the NT and everyone here basically answered 'cause the Church said so!' - that is as liberal as you can get. It doesn't look for truth in Scripture but looks for it in itself, and itself says it is truth. Circular and illogical.”

I hardly doubt the actual teaching on why circumcision is not required is “because the church says so”. Someone may have said that but it hardly means that they are correct.

“The truth that regeneration comes through baptism is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible. Paul reminds us in Titus 3:5 that God "saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit."

Paul also said, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3–4).

This teaching—that baptism unites us with Christ’s death and resurrection so that we might die to sin and receive new life—is a key part of Paul’s theology. In Colossians 2:11–13, he tells us, "In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision [of] Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ" (NIV).” ~Catholic.com

Let's be even more clear- you say it is a sign of God's grace, that invalidates what grace is. unmerited favor. Meaning if you must have a sign for it, it is not grace, but works based. This is simple logic.

I see a lot of me in you. I’m not sure if that is good or bad. God’s favor to us is unmerited. However, participating in acts that ask for God to favor us does not mean we have earned salvation.

As a protestant you take part in prayer. Let’s say your brother is sick and he asks you to pray for him. If you pray to God “Please heal my brother”, God may choose to do so. If He does, it doesn’t mean you have earned your brothers healing, but you are participating in God’s will as He asks you to do so.

Furthermore I want to clarify the relationship that Catholics have with faith and works. The scriptures are explicitly clear that works go hand in hand with grace. You cannot have one without the other. Protestants teach that the natural outpouring of faith in Christ is works and that someone with no works probably doesn’t have faith. This is for most purposes true. Catholics don’t keep record books of how many works they do and don’t sit at home wondering how many more works it will take to get to heaven, but they do understand the necessity of following God’s will in their lives as part of the unmerited favor they have been given from God. You don’t accept the gift of grace without understanding that works are essential to our faith.

So either way you cut it- that works are a natural outpouring of true faith or whether works and faith work together in grace, you come to the same conclusion- works will follow initial faith.

All organizations change over time, and you can see it easily within the Catholic Church. Two examples - a) it was understood up until the recent postmodern culture that only those within the true church of Christ (the invisible one here) are quoth 'saved' if Jesus returned at that moment. Now this culture believes that is not quite true, but by desire you could be in it - that is a growth in an organization and a change, thus the Catholic Church of the 1300's is not the one of today. Same name, different beliefs. b) The early culture of the first few centuries had basically two types of people. Those who believe in a pantheon of God's, and those who believed in one God. Many introduced into the church believed in a pantheon and added Christianity to their list to worship - results can be seen in the Pantheon with the saints heads now there to appeal to these, and the affects such as a sacrifice (transubstantiation), and others. This influenced and changed the church, and the model seen first in Acts of things such as all families celebrating communion without a 'priest' or 'apostle' was changed.

I agree that the Catholic Church has changed over the last two millinia, however they do not worship the saints. The doctrines of the communion of the saints is as ancient as the teachings of the apostles themselves. Doctrines are defined or “set in stone” for the clarification of the laypeople and the style of worship and the language in which it Christianity is taught are things that change, hardly doctrinal positions though.

You’ll have to be more specific though that the mass was a pagan practice and was melded into Christianity.

You seem to misrepresent protestantism doctrine here. Salvation biblically is a lifelong process.

Many protestants would not agree with you.

The commission isn't to make those that profess Jesus as Lord and Savior but to make disciples of all nations. This is a struggle and one daily to submit to the Holy Spirit within oneself and turn to sacrifice more of one's life to Christ. I spoke with one Catholic turned protestant recently who told me how much harder it was now for him because no longer could he just 'do' stuff, he must work on changing his heart, and giving more of his life daily to Christ. To change his attitude, and how he lives.

Remember that there are over one billion Catholics now and many do not even understand their faith. They may go through the motions and not even understand what they are doing. I agree that it is a daily struggle to conform to the will of God, and so would many faithful Catholics.

I agree as well. I would also point out many Catholics are oblivious to the world of protestantism and do not wish to understand it either.

Ah, true. Christians have their work cut out for them. I doubt Christ appreciates the division we have caused among ourselves.

Many do believe that, I do not. Catholicism has a truckload of baggage over Scripture which doesn't allow Scripture to speak for itself today but must be molded to what the Catholic Church says.

I’m glad that you don’t believe that. Unfortunately this is a game that is often played. “Catholics twist scripture” says the Baptist, “Baptists twist scripture” says Catholics. You can say it, but it doesn’t mean anything unless you can prove it. Unfortunately “letting scripture speak for itself” does not mean we can interpert it any way we feel it is speaking to us. Scripture can leave you with many impressions based on the way you grew up and were taught, but that doesn’t mean you are right. Interpretation without authority is forbidden by scripture.

Agreed, major differences. Most mainstream protestant denominations in America do not have that large schism as you put forth. Would you really consider a female pastor to be a greater difference than salvation by faith alone, and salvation by faith and works? One is an interpretation which can be very dangerous, the other affects the very nature of what grace is. Seems simple which is more of a problem.

I would agree that the very denial of the Trinity is a big enough difference to expell one from the “Christian” domain. Salvation however is never by “faith alone”. It is by “being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God” Romans 3:24-25

And I would encourage you to study history from all perspectives, and not from one that must have it one way such as the Catholic Church. There is many interesting things which are forgotten in the Catholic Church's rendition.

Have you ever read “History in Plain Language” by Shelley? Or the Large Catachism by Luther? Or Confessions by Augustine? Many great writings out there, but Catholic and protestant. So long as it isn’t by Chick.

Not a problem, this would be 'Sola Scriptura', a foundational belief. To say it is a problem is to put your own philosophy over it, but in reality this is a very simple statement and undeniable by anyone because it really is what evangelical doctrine does. evangelical, not any doctrine.

The problem with using the Bible as a sole authority without any other authority to properly interpret it is the 10,000 different faith systems now in place in the United States and abroad. Without the Church, the “Pillar and foundation of Truth” you can’t be certain that you are taking scripture as it was meant to be interpreted with 100% flawless accuracy.

Meal with the Savior, or of the Savior. You said you disagreed there but you didn't really say why. You just said they believe since Christ is eternal, the sacrifice is still applicable in the mass. I suggest you read Romans 5:12-23 at some point, it may add some clarity.

I am not sure why you are going in a 'conniption fit'. You have not shown anything written to be untrue, but have shown yourself to come to it with your own bias. Even the last response you gave your utmost rejection of, but at the same time did not clarify how the primary source was incorrect.

Because this author fails to give any proof of what he says. But instead just attacks the faith system.

Tradition must be higher than Scripture because Scripture is nothing without the Catholic Church's Tradition, yet without Scripture the Catholic Church would be fine today. Tradition is the rule in Catholic Church because it says what you must do with Scripture and so thus Scripture is void on it's own. Tradition stands alone as it does not even need Scripture to confirm itself within the Catholic Church. The magisterium does that. To say that they complement is a misunderstanding of how the Catholic Church uses them.

I doubt the Catholic Church would agree with you. And I would disagree that the Catholic Church would be fine without scripture. The Catholic Church views that the scriptures were written by Catholic- as they view the apostles and first Christians as the first Catholics. Sacred Tradition includes how scripture is interpreted and how it has been intrepted for 2000 years. That is the same as saying your interpretation is above scripture because scripture is void without your interpretation.

You say they are extra-biblically, yet the Catholic Church's position is extra-biblical as well by that definition. There is nothing 'extra-biblical' about that statement because it is grounded in other passages and themes of Scripture. To say it is such shows your misunderstanding and ignorance of the protestant position. I suggest you work on a book, 'What are Protestant Doctrines and positions' before you start working on the Catholic Church's.

They are indeed extra biblical because they are not directly taught in scripture. They are an interpertation of scripture. The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are not called ordinances and are not taught as such in scripture, as one example. Thank you for your concern though.

Your argument is void. No kid in the womb has the rationality or intelligence to have faith in anything. Unless you are saying that some are gifted with this supraintelligence in the womb? Perhaps you should understand that you had no valid info in your response to this past one and rethink your reply.

That is a common argument but void because faith isn’t necessarily the action of a person “praying and accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.” Faith is the gift of God given through grace to justify the soul.

Good showing of the Catholic Church's doctrine. I wonder why you think this one is so good yet the others are so off the wall. I would think all his research was done in the same manner. Consider what view you are coming to his writings with, and search for his instead.

His conclusions are off the wall.

You come from the idea that "his sheep are allowed to wander stray". This makes no sense - all sheep wander stray by their own choice and it is Christ who always brings them back. Sheep are noted for their supreme dumbness as well, they have no idea they are going astray - it just happens and Christ brings them back. You have an odd statement as well, you say that mortal sin is "you don't want any part of him", this is ridiculous and not even the Catholics teach this one. Perhaps you should consider their position more. Do you really think someone who is driven to commit murder believes in his heart that he wants 0 part of God at that act? I would severely doubt it as that act is a choice, just like all sin is, and because you make it it is pride believing your own wisdom is above God's. Your points 1 and 2 are good, and it makes me glorify God that the grace of God covers all sins. (Romans 5:12-23)

It is interesting that you agree with points one and two because that is what you believe, but must find a way to disagree with the third point because you don’t believe it and must find a way to defend your view instead of considering it.

a) You contradict yourself, you say confession must be to a priest, and not just to God, but you don't say confession is to your wife, but then in this response you say confession basically must be to everyone sinned against. Is not our salvation between us and God, not between others? Of course with others our salvation will cause us to wish to ask forgiveness, but we are not repenting to each other, only to God.

You don’t have to confess to a priest, I never said you do, but the Catholic states that it is a source of grace available to you, so no I don’t contradict myself.

b) Ordination is not from the Catholics, this is absurd. Even Timothy was ordained by Paul for his ministry. Not as an apostle, but as a leader of the church. It is impossible for an apostle to ordain another apostle since you must have seen the resurrected Lord (Acts 1), and the signs of the position are mighty works and wonders.

Timothy and Paul were Catholic, according to the Church.

Read Romans 1 about none are ignorant.

I did, now you read the CC teaching on invincible ignorance so you can know we are talking about two separate issues.

Would you be happier with 10 documents being sourced, rather than 1? 1 being sourced doesn't mean it is the only one, it just means the author felt McCarthy had the best words for the matter

Like I said, don’t use a Buddhist source to show Baptist beliefs and don’t use a Baptist source to prove Catholic teachings.

Perhaps you aren't grasping it either. I am not sure why it has to be very complex either, it seems to be quite straightforward if you see it as a figure of speech.

It’s not a figure of speech. But hey, I’m just one person. Like you, fallible.

I believe the author is using Hebrews 6:6 out of context here. However, your logic has much to be desired. Christ's sacrifice is outside of time? Are you saying He is still on the cross? I am 100% sure Christ died and was raised from the dead and is not being sacrificed today. The sacrifice was for all, but saying you must partake in that still denies that Christ covered all sins at that moment - just that he covers only sins in the past. All does not mean 'all up to this point' but since He is eternal I think you agree He covered all future sins as well.

I’ll leave that for a Catholic brother to answer. Alas it is true, I don't have all the answers, and I can even admit it

Show the exaggeration so you could enlighten other readers please.

The exaggeration that he constantly says Holy Tradition is above the Scriptures.

He has been showing it. It is your own position which says it is not proof. There are many many examples of this as well, but the Catholic Church will merely say that is your own personal interpretation and not sanctified.

Ah yes, we can all tell each other it is our own interpretation and doesn’t mean hogwash because “I really know what scriptures are saying”. The problem is, we can’t all be right, so who is to be trusted?

Any dogma? Saints according to Scripture are all believers in Christ. Not one who is shown by three miracles and all sorts of other processes, that is anti-biblical. Grace is unmeritted Scripturally, not produced by doing a work such as a sacrament, that is anti-biblical. It is your own semantic differences and position which say it is anti-biblical and the sacred tradition which ignores the plain context today.

Saints according to the Catholic Church are all believers in Christ. So what if they study their life before declaring them to be saints?

You don't understand what the author said. We are saved through faith in Christ, that is true. The summation of what we must believe is not summed up in just a word however, but who Christ is. Your apostle creed also is a declaration of belief, and not a guide for salvation. The faith in who Christ is however, the author would agree with this creed even thought it is from a few centuries after the apostles already died. The only part possibly in disagreement that I see is Christ descending into hell.

Yes, if someone is a member of the Catholic Church they must believe in Catholicism, this however does not take away that Catholicism teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. If you are Baptist you believe in the Baptist faith and trust in the Baptist Church, but that doesn’t mean you lack faith in Christ.

[Circle_Master]

excellent reply. i will respond when i find time

[jmjtina]

:notworthy:

Brother Adam, your amesome. We'll pray for you and Mrs.Bro.Adams! ;)

[Brother Adam]

Thank you. As we converse though lets remember to try to keep any personal attacks out of the picture. I know that sometimes such conversations can take a turn for the worst. I wish I had more time to write that reply, as I already see several areas I think need to be clarified more, but I will wait until you reply to expound.